Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

The case may well have been a Gladstone bag? carried by Goldstein..

Fanny Mortimer exclaimed "I was at my door for no-more than ten minutes"

And the ripper community cry'd bibble...

[Admin]

General Announcement to all:

Discuss the case, not the failings of individual posters. Thank you.

[Monty]

Monty you are biggest culprit on here you continually reject what people say on here in favour of you old outdated theories to which you can provide no corroboration for anyway.

And now you have taken to me and want to be my agent how does 10 % sound

And what are my old outdated theories? I'm interested in hearing them as I'm not sure I have any.

20% I believe is the norm.

Simon,

Yes...fair comment.

Monty

[Monty]

Bridewell,

Good old Police and Criminal Evidence act (PACE). The nights I've spent with a highlighter reading that.

Yes, I suspect it would have been a confrontational ID however maybe not in the true sense whereas the two actually come face to face.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

Yes Bridewell, that was the phrase that caught my eye in the first place and made me query Hove as the Seaside Home, leading to this thread in the first place...and I guess it is still that phrase which bugs me re the Seamans Home...but hey there are far better minds than mine baffled by it!

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

One other point which should perhaps be mentioned: The marginalia allude to "identification". My reading of the text suggests that the witness (whoever it may have been) was shown just the one suspect and asked whether or not this was the offender. If this is what transpired, strictly speaking, it's a "confrontation". A confrontation ID is very weak from an evidential point of view, for obvious reasons - the witness is shown only one person and must either accept or reject that person as the offender. Such a procedure would have been permissible only if the suspect had been asked to stand on an ID Parade and had refused to do so. If such an offer was not made, any identification resulting from the confrontation would be invalid and not admissible. That was certainly the case in my time, but even my police service doesn't go back as far as the 19th century.

It could have been (I'm not saying it was!) that the whole "refused to give evidence" thing was a red herring to conceal a blunder in ID procedure.

If you haven't actually quite gone away, Trevor, perhaps you can confirm (or otherwise) that my understanding is correct. So much changed with PACE 1984, that it's sometimes difficult to recall, with certainty, how things used to be. Regards, Bridewell.

My understanding is that this sort of confrontational ID was standard practice at the time and not un-heard of.. might be one for Monty? So I think the blunder idea doesnt work.

If the witness was Schwartz its always struck me as interesting that Schwartz was described as Theatrical? Could Schwartz have been a Tailor and worked for the Kosminski family? Could he have recognised Kosminski other than Berner Street? Could they have been known to each other, other than the killing?

Just a Thought

Jeff

[Bridewell]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

One other point which should perhaps be mentioned: The marginalia allude to "identification". My reading of the text suggests that the witness (whoever it may have been) was shown just the one suspect and asked whether or not this was the offender. If this is what transpired, strictly speaking, it's a "confrontation". A confrontation ID is very weak from an evidential point of view, for obvious reasons - the witness is shown only one person and must either accept or reject that person as the offender. Such a procedure would have been permissible only if the suspect had been asked to stand on an ID Parade and had refused to do so. If such an offer was not made, any identification resulting from the confrontation would be invalid and not admissible. That was certainly the case in my time, but even my police service doesn't go back as far as the 19th century.

It could have been (I'm not saying it was!) that the whole "refused to give evidence" thing was a red herring to conceal a blunder in ID procedure.

If you haven't actually quite gone away, Trevor, perhaps you can confirm (or otherwise) that my understanding is correct. So much changed with PACE 1984, that it's sometimes difficult to recall, with certainty, how things used to be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

I told you I never bluff there is a time and a place for everything I will try to make sure you are there.

I should say to you the same about the authenticty of the marginalia put it up for re examamination or stop telling people its authentic.

I have nothing to apologise for I will shut up now becaue this is becoming tiresome any annoying to me trying to offer reason and logic to those who do not have the apptitude or capabilty to understand it.

Ah! so you admit that you have had new examinations done and you are holding back the results of those examinations for your personal profit?

You are doing exactly what you attack others for doing! Hypocrit!

Can you at least tell us the nature of these examinations what was looked at and by what sort of an expert?

Please confirm

Yours Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This thread has deteriorated into a demeaning slagging-match.

Let us all take a breath and return with posts more worthy of discussion.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Your labelling of me as a bully amuses me. I'm not the one sending abusive Emails to those who criticise me. My talking is out in the open for all to see.

Numerous times I have provided evidence which has cast doubt over your theories.

Numerous times I have questioned your evaluation of evidence and cited why.

And numerous times your response was not to provide counter evidence but to abuse. Now that won't wash with me, I don't take such cr@p.

You stated I was part of a cabal. You were asked to either provide evidence or retract. You did neither. I let that slide, cos I'm a good guy. Heck. I even promoted you for this years conference, yet I'm the bully.

Some people are just so ungrateful.

Monty

Monty you are biggest culprit on here you continually reject what people say on here in favour of you old outdated theories to which you can provide no corroboration for anyway.

And now you have taken to me and want to be my agent how does 10 % sound

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I very much doubt that you could find a decent hand writing expert willing to risk his reputation on such a fool hardy acessment..

I there fore conclude that your bluffing..

If you genuinely have any evidence what so ever then bring it forward and let it be judged..What exactly are you scared of...more failour?

What you are doing is deliberately miss leading the public who dont fully understand the implications of what your doing and saying, by trying to discredit perfectly honourable people with your lies.

Either bring forward and present or shut up and apologize

Yours Jeff

I told you I never bluff there is a time and a place for everything I will try to make sure you are there.

I should say to you the same about the authenticty of the marginalia put it up for re examamination or stop telling people its authentic.

I have nothing to apologise for I will shut up now becaue this is becoming tiresome any annoying to me trying to offer reason and logic to those who do not have the apptitude or capabilty to understand it.

[Supe]

Jeff,

if Trevor has had new hand writing analysis done on the marginalia why is he hiding these results?

If he did, most likely because he has another book or tv show in the offing. As I said a long time ago, Trev is not at all impressive on his own, but what a great agent he must have.

Anyway, by pressing him for answers he clearly has no intention of giving you only help increase an audience for the probable book or television show.

Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Don but if Trevor has had new hand writing analysis done on the marginalia why is he hiding these results?

After months of barraiting the police about hiding information and not releasing what is in teh publics interest it appears that it is he TREVOR MARRIOTT that has been hiding and deceiving the public and his fellow peers..

Why are your secret tests being kept from us?

We what trabsparacy

Who is the secret expert

Jeff

[Monty]

Trevor,

Your labelling of me as a bully amuses me. I'm not the one sending abusive Emails to those who criticise me. My talking is out in the open for all to see.

Numerous times I have provided evidence which has cast doubt over your theories.

Numerous times I have questioned your evaluation of evidence and cited why.

And numerous times your response was not to provide counter evidence but to abuse. Now that won't wash with me, I don't take such cr@p.

You stated I was part of a cabal. You were asked to either provide evidence or retract. You did neither. I let that slide, cos I'm a good guy. Heck. I even promoted you for this years conference, yet I'm the bully.

Some people are just so ungrateful.

Monty

[Supe]

Can't we simply ignore Marriott? Let him blather and bluster to an empty room, so to speak, and even he will soon tire of his own words. His ideas, including the monstrous nonsense about the apron piece found in Goulston Street, have all been found wanting and he is such an execrable writer that no one new to the field is in any danger of being persuaded by his misguided notions.

He is rude, crude, a boor, and a bore and trying to debate with him only imparts a false sense of validity to his arguments. Resist his taunts and insults and if we suffer a while in silence we may well be rid of him.

Don.